Odds that global warming is due to natural factors: slim to none

An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation in the earth’s climate, according to a new study by McGill physics professor Shaun Lovejoy.

BASF_Werk_Ludwigshafen_1881Statistical analysis rules out natural-warming hypothesis with more than 99 per cent certainty

An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation in the earth’s climate, according to a new study by McGill physics professor Shaun Lovejoy.

The study, published online on April 6, in the journal Climate Dynamics, represents a new approach to the question of whether global warming in the industrial era has been caused largely by man-made emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Rather than using complex computer models to estimate the effects of greenhouse-gas emissions, Lovejoy examines historical data to assess the competing hypothesis: that warming over the past century is due to natural long-term variations in temperature.

“This study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers,” Lovejoy says. “Their two most convincing arguments – that the warming is natural in origin, and that the computer models are wrong – are either directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it.”

Lovejoy’s study applies statistical methodology to determine the probability that global warming since 1880 is due to natural variability. His conclusion: the natural-warming hypothesis may be ruled out “with confidence levels great than 99 per cent, and most likely greater than 99.9 per cent.”

“This study shows that the odds of that being caused by natural fluctuations are less than one in a hundred and are likely to be less than one in a thousand," says physics professor Shaun Lovejoy.
“This study shows that the odds of that being caused by natural fluctuations are less than one in a hundred and are likely to be less than one in a thousand,” says physics professor Shaun Lovejoy.

To assess the natural variability before much human interference, the new study uses “multi-proxy climate reconstructions” developed by scientists in recent years to estimate historical temperatures, as well as fluctuation-analysis techniques from nonlinear geophysics. The climate reconstructions take into account a variety of gauges found in nature, such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediments. And the fluctuation-analysis techniques make it possible to understand the temperature variations over wide ranges of time scales.

For the industrial era, Lovejoy’s analysis uses carbon-dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels as a proxy for all man-made climate influences – a simplification justified by the tight relationship between global economic activity and the emission of greenhouse gases and particulate pollution, he says. “This allows the new approach to implicitly include the cooling effects of particulate pollution that are still poorly quantified in computer models,” he adds.

While his new study makes no use of the huge computer models commonly used by scientists to estimate the magnitude of future climate change, Lovejoy’s findings effectively complement those of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), he says. His study predicts, with 95 per cent confidence, that a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere would cause the climate to warm by between 1.9 and 4.2 degrees Celsius. That range is more precise than – but in line with – the IPCC’s prediction that temperatures would rise by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius if CO2 concentrations double.

“We’ve had a fluctuation in average temperature that’s just huge since 1880 – on the order of about 0.9 degrees Celsius,” Lovejoy says. “This study shows that the odds of that being caused by natural fluctuations are less than one in a hundred and are likely to be less than one in a thousand.

“While the statistical rejection of a hypothesis can’t generally be used to conclude the truth of any specific alternative, in many cases – including this one – the rejection of one greatly enhances the credibility of the other.”

Read “Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming”, S. Lovejoy, Climate Change, published online April 6, 2014.

 

 

Comments on “Odds that global warming is due to natural factors: slim to none”

  • Eric Roberts

    So, if I understand this correctly – if it wasn’t for man made warming, we would still have the ice age glaciers and McGill University would be under five kilometers of ice.

  • Are we seriously still debating “global warming”? You scamicists have been proven to be nothing more than con men. Global warming is a religion, nothing more.

  • randydutton

    And did he incorporate the effect CFCs had on ozone levels? ” A 2013 study suggests that the ban on ozone depleting chemicals may have also impacted the rise in global temperatures. CFC gases were responsible for a massive hole in the ozone layer but they also had a powerful greenhouse effect. The authors link a ban on their use to a “pause” or slowdown in temperature increases since the mid 1990s. The research is published in the journal Nature Geoscience.
    The subject of a hiatus or standstill in global temperatures rises since 1998 has been the subject of intense debate among scientists, and it has been used as a key argument by some to show that the impacts of global warming have been exaggerated.
    CFCs were not just damaging the ozone layer, they were also having a warming impact, as they are 10,000 times more powerful than carbon dioxide and can last up to 100 years in the atmosphere.
    Their removal, say the authors, was a critical factor in the slowdown.
    The phasing out of CFCs in spray cans may also have impacted the increase in temperatures in the 1990s
    “Our analysis suggests that the reduction in the emissions of ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol, as well as a reduction in methane emissions, contributed to the lower rate of warming since the 1990s,” the authors write.”

  • “Climate Change leaves us with, basically, two ways out. One is extraordinary technology: either a silver bullet to produce cheap, renewable energy, or a reliable geo-engineering technique to adjust the global …weather system directly. Either might happen—the first likely will, maybe too late to prevent permanent crisis; but waiting on clean energy is a very big risk, and geo-engineering brings huge risks of its own …ending up making the system even more unstable.” Jedediah Purdy Climate Change Needs the Politics of the Impossible U.S. News April 6, 2014
    A cheap green silver bullet, the missing, singularly realistic, path to slowing climate change appears to be at hand.
    An abundant, largely untapped source of solar energy, atmospheric heat, can potentially power engines continuously without the need for fuel. Two decades of physics research indicate not only that this may be possible, but that there exist exploitable exceptions to the current interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. One example of such an exception is a patent pending piston engine currently being prototyped. Utilizing the abundant energy stored in the atmosphere, this design is capable of producing power continuously and can potentially scale to large sizes.
    Turbines that do not require fuel have also been designed and will also be prototyped. They could provide hybrid cars with practically unlimited range and the ability to produce and sell excess electricity when suitably parked. Variations on this design may one day in the not-too-distant future replace coal and nuclear plants as well as power aircraft.
    A few small prototype engines will be tested and validated by independent labs. A desktop piston engine capable of charging a tablet computer and cell phone will follow. Units capable of powering homes and small buildings will not be far behind. See http://www.aesopinstitute.org
    The science behind these engine designs provides unrecognized exceptions to The Second Law of Thermodynamics. Few physicists and/or engineers accept them as possible. Second Law Surprises, under MORE on that website, may be of interest to individuals willing to examine facts and evidence that are not widely known.
    It appears to be just a matter of time before additional new, landmark discoveries in physics, and engineering, will lead to additional highly efficient engines and generators that use the practically unlimited energy available to humanity in the atmosphere. Such devices have the potential to significantly reduce the impact of climate change on present and future generations.
    “Civilization is in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.” ― H.G. Wells

  • No matter what, this entirely IGNORES whatever caused the huge fluctuations in the past, before man built a factory, drove a car, or even built a fire.
    ——————–
    no way, no how, is man going to ruin this planet in this way, and the SCARE TACTICS like this (so that governments can demand money and power) is despicable.

  • so, why is it that the human infestation of the planet is NOT considered a natural phenomenon ? … and therefore a natural cause for all kinds of conditions and events? More basic than that, maybe it was the primordial ooze that was the original pollutant of the planet.

  • There are two sides to every story, but when it comes to climate change, only one of those sides has even a shred of credibility, since 80-90 percent of credible scientific research points to the reality of human-caused climate change. Of course oil and gas industry propagandists, and their useful idiots in the right-wing media, have spent billions of dollars and countless hours putting forth a propaganda line to marginalize the science, much as Dubya Bush had information redacted if it didn’t please his oil and gas industry overlords. And people buy it – after all, this is a nation where 33 percent of the people don’t believe in evolution, so discrediting scientific reality isn’t the toughest trick to pull off.

  • CptObvious

    “Lovejoy’s analysis uses carbon-dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels as a proxy for all man-made climate influence”
    Seeing as CO2 levels rise in response to temperature increases (not as a result of), as shown in ice core data, this study is without merit and a waste of time.
    Climate change is happening, but as far as it being man-made, I have my doubts…

  • Politicalzoo

    This planet has always and will always be inhospitable… it is those who adapt that survive. If you want to stop global warming… stop having kids. Until you address that… I don’t want to hear about how you don’t like my car emissions.

  • So the medieval warm period was caused by humans also before fossil fuels? What about the little ice age? Theres been one average temperature for the last 10,000 years? 99% certainty huh?

  • Hmmm… So he set the arbitrary date at 1500? Oh yeah, that’s because when “mankind” started to expand its horizons and make things in a capitalist fashion? So, last time I was in Pompeii, the tour guide indicated to us that the gates to the city were actually 100 meters from the docks and Mediterranean Sea that the ships birthed at. Now, 3000 years later the water is not visible from those stone gates and in fact is over a kilometer away and quite a bit lower in elevation. Hmmm, what caused that??? Global unwarming?
    All I’m saying is that mankind does affect its surroundings, but if anyone thinks that by creating those new taxes and fees to make some feel better about our decadence, then to hell with em. Do you who read this know that man IS part of nature! Things never stay the same….status quo as some like to call it when it fits their agenda. 🙂

  • Actually, if you accept the line of reasoning in this paper and factor in the absence of warming in recent years, you could reasonably conclude that the warming was due to CFCs, not CO2. Personally I think that meta-studies like this are a poor substitute for hard science and are not to be trusted very far.

  • Let’s see. You are basing your analysis for a period from 1880 forward? Lead into the article says since 1500, before climate data was consistently kept….Boy am I confused. Has your information even been pier reviewed by the people that would agree with you as well as the MYRIAD of real scientist who seem to find different results. I would be VERY skeptical of making some grand proclamation like this except you really don’t care if it is factual, just so you can say it to retain your funding!!

  • These climate romantics never cease to amaze. Some call them alarmist, but I don’t. They are just very passionate individuals that need some sort of emotional fulfillment in their lives. It must have been very disheartening when one of their prophets James Lovelock recanted his global warming views in spring of 2013.

  • Tommie Godwin

    My grandfather had it right,’give a fool an education and you end up with an educated fool.’When you can explain how earth got rid of the last ice age without warming up then I will believe you.The idea that anyone would trust the

  • “Odds are” so calculating odds and calling it fact or evidence is now science? “Slim to none” is now what sort of scale?
    This is the problem with every argument the CO2 only, Human only global warming theory, you have no actual evidence.
    Flawed computer models are not evidence.
    The real planet earth’s atmosphere NOT behaving like the fake planet earth in the computer model is not evidence.
    Cherry picking data from 100+ years ago is not proof.
    Inventing meaningless values like “average global temperature” and then declaring a value which supports you theory is not evidence.
    Add to the above, the various claims of ONLY doom just makes the theory less likely to be true and finally, the various mitigation options generally involving re-engineering the atmosphere until it matches your computer models are simply a sign of arrogance.
    The worst part is your so called experiments. Shutting down, avoiding and suppressing any real experiment in favor of ones with only proof of your theory as an outcome. A real experiment has conditions which prove or disprove a theory. An experiment where every result is proving your theory is not a real experiment.
    The only part of global warming that is real is it seems to be warmer today that say 40 years ago when we had blizzards every other year. That is all.
    Could it be human influenced, maybe. The problem is the refusal to even look at other causes.
    For example, in the same 100+ years of industrialization we have increased the human population exponentially as well. Humans create heat. Bodies, bodies of domestic animals, cooking, heating homes, creating everything from metals, to plastics to concrete and everything involves heat. Basically it isnt the CO2 from the tailpipe it is the heat from the radiator or the cook fires being done by 7 billion humans that is potentially the problem. An easy theory to accept by anyone who has ever been in a room full of people, it warms.
    Humans dont need CO2 to cause some fantasy greenhouse effect, we humans produce more than enough heat to have a warming effect on its own.
    Maybe my theory is wrong but should be tested. However, it nor any other theory will be tested because scientists and politicians and their backers have a financial interest and a quest for power which comes from faking a cause like CO2. It is not the cause, it cant be measured properly, the baseline cant be determined and it is a core molecule for life on earth.
    Power and money. Grants from government, investments in green companies, ridiculous carbon taxes and regulation are what these people want and when people use Odds calculations and Slim to None measures as this article does, this completely helps the people who want that power and money based on faking CO2 problem.

  • Tommie Godwin

    My grandfather had it right,’give a fool an education and you end up with an educated fool.’When you can explain how earth got rid of the last ice age without warming up then I will believe you.The idea that anyone would trust the UN or anyone associated with it is an insult to common sense.Hell,if it wasn’t for nbc,cbs,and cnn I would have thought it got damn cold this past winter.Good luck in explaining to the citizens of Atlanta that all that ice and snow was really heatwaves laying on Atlanta.
    There is one chance in ninetynine that anyone associated with these have studies have ever had a real job.Most if not all are mere hustlers who live off of grants.They have certainly proven my grandfather correct.

  • Wayne Lusk

    So, when do we start “eliminating” about 5 Billion Humans?

  • Gunnar Wolpe

    This article is ludicrous. It makes your entire publication look ludicrous.
    Hey, guys, ever hear of something called “The Sun”? It provides all the warming the Earth ever gets, and it is completely a natural factor.

  • Too bad the computer models have not been coming true. Otherwise I might actually have to take notice of studies such as this. Good luck with that.

  • Didn’t a similar AGW theory lead to human sacrifice in the Aztec Empire?

  • Last time I looked humans were still natural. So, whatever we do is natural, duh. Just more species hate speech.

  • Larry Logan

    Statistician Matthew Briggs is only among the first of many who will blow holes through this document, and we can all hope Lovejoy sinks fast. (The publication of this study is prima facie that the purpose of true peer-review is dead.
    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=8061

  • “While the statistical rejection of a hypothesis can’t generally be used to conclude the truth of any specific alternative, in many cases – including this one – the rejection of one greatly enhances the credibility of the other.”
    In Response I would like to add my two cents and give the global warming community something more to research instead of jumping to premature conclusions. First of all, there has been no scientific proof that the co2 or any gas has actually warmed up the planet. As a matter of fact, Extensive research has proven that the gases on earth do not cause global warming nor global cooling in any way. What is responsible for Climate change Is the Sun and that is a proven fact. Real Scientists can predict what the weather will be like and how cold or hot it will be by measuring the number of sunspots. Second, If by some reason co2 and the Gas’s on earth do cause climate change through some sort of bizarre “Greenhouse Effect” Then They must take into account where these greenhouse gas’s come from.. Almost All greenhouse gas comes from nature the oceans pollute methane, Volcanoes pollute various different things, Dead plants and animals pollute — Something like 99.999999% of All the greenhouse pollution comes from the earth itself. Third, The amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere that is required to produce climate change would be extensive enough that humans would not be able to breathe because our lungs are too small.
    So please, do some real research and look at all the facts before jumping to Irrational conclusions. Know what the real Facts are, and know the mechanisms of our planet Before you speculate And before you publish. Without facts and with speculation Global Warming alarmists have actually led to more pollution.. Driving an Electric car takes more energy then driving a conventional engine because the power it takes to produce energy comes from a power plant and it takes power to get the electricity to your car. Florescent bulbs contain poisons and chemicals that pollute worse then conventional bulbs, ect ect.. More harm then good.

  • I was told in school during the 70s that we were heading for a mini ice age. The older I get the more I realize how little science knows with any accuracy. No one can truly understand the power of the planet. The sun alone could fry all your educated guesses. The planet could spit us out tomorrow. This is not to say that we shouldn’t be responsible stewards. Too much consumption and population. Too much disposable waste society in general.

  • James Young

    Not sure why people find it so hard to beleive that Humans can have such a large effect on the Earth. Nor do I understand why the deniers take it personally, as if they were being scolded by their parents in front of their friends. Among my more scientific-minded, academic-savy friends, I find little doubt that Humans could so greatly affect the Earth’s Climate, if not inevitably. I really only find climate change deniers among my religious fundamentalist friends and the handful that get all of their education from fox news pundits. I would even go as far as to suggest that smarter people tend to accept the science behind climate change or at the least, accept responsibility, while dumber people deny it. Crazy thing to say, I know, but ill stand by it.

  • I’m looking for funding to write a scientific study proving that extensive breathing causes increased levels of co2 and , hence, the global warming. If the humans can decrease the rate of breathing by 20%, the global temperatures will drop by 2C by 2050.

  • chiraldude

    Ok, lets assume that man made global warming is 100% real. The only way to “turn off” CO2 production is for humans to stop using carbon based fuels. Exactly how would this be accomplished? The current global population and modern society as we know it would collapse if we stopped using fossil fuels today. Half the world’s population would die within 5 years due to starvation! The collective population of Earth is not going to plunge it’s self back into the stone age to “save the planet”. Not gonna happen!
    Why are we arguing about the warming? We should instead be preparing for it.
    Relocation programs for people who will be displaced when sea level arrives.
    Shifting agriculture toward polar regions.
    Desalinization facilities to generate fresh water from sea water.
    And many more….

  • They must have had some big coal fired power plants before the Medieval Warm Period.

  • David Witcraft

    Without questioning the assumptions made, in order to generate the data, or the analysis(which would presumably be defended in the article), we still can’t quantify the man made contribution to warming, nor ACCURATELY predict how we can adjust global warming with our activity, or IF we should. We know the earth has warmed steadily since the last ice age, but we can’t say to what degree man made activity has altered it. Since warming is a natural cycle, who says mankind should interfere to alter it? We seem overly obsessed by the impact warming would have on OUR species, and a few polar bears. What gives us the right to alter or interfere with a natural planet cycle?
    While we should consider ways to minimize our species’ negative impact on our environment, we can’t just curtail our planetary economic activity, to meet some guidelines that aren’t clearly grounded in fact yet. Yes, the earth is warming. Yes, man kind has LIKELY had a major impact on that, but HOW MAJOR, TO WHAT DEGREE CAN WE ALTER OUR IMPACT, AND TO WHAT DEGREE SHOULD WE, AND AT WHAT COST?

  • In order to prove that CO2 raises temperature, lets do a study using CO2 as a proxy for temperature. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

  • I wonder if the same proxies and reconstructions that were used to create Michael Mann’s famed and widely debunked Hockey Stick were used in this “study.”
    It appears that the global warming alarmist crowd are getting more and more desperate to allow for globalist control and taxation of their lives. Just look at the lead-off to this article:
    “This study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers,” Lovejoy says. “Their two most convincing arguments – that the warming is natural in origin, and that the computer models are wrong – are either directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it.”
    When you consider that man has only contributed about .03% of total CO2 levels and that models can not predict or even retroactively model climate, this statement in itself is absolutely ludicrous.

  • Patrick Aucoin

    Sad to read these comments, willful ignorance,
    Gives licence for greed and selfish hubris, the information is available, that shows the massive amout of data which points to man made warming. Deniers are willfully ignorant or twisting the data… Instead of caution they promote greed , hubris and selfishness!!!

  • We have clean energy, have had it for nearly 70 years now. That the Greens reject it because it gives you all waste in a controllable lump is the insanity of the Greens, not anything to do with physics. Thorium based nuclear power using molten salt reactors is the safest and cleanest power known to man, including solar and hydro and wind. It’s so much safer than any fossil fuel that it’s not worth mentioning.
    The usual “green” aka idiot argument against nuclear goes “but it skeers me cause bombs”. Building bombs from thorium is nearly impossible, it would likely be easier to build a bomb with the americium in smoke alarms. (Note to the uninformed, the smallest nuclear reactor ever built was build in Israel and was powered by americium.)
    Waste – hardly ever do we hear it mentioned that nuclear waste was NEVER supposed to be stored on site, it’s stored that way because of political pressure by, who else, Greens. It’s SUPPOSED to be reprocessed, the fuel elements taken out and the actual waste concentrated and mixed with cement to make a nice stable BLOCK OF CEMENT, and then have more cement around it for a radiation shield, and then taken to a storage area in a mine or something and left to sit. REPROCESSED in this manner, as the GOVERNMENT PROMISED IT WOULD BE, the actual lifetime of the waste to get down to the radioactivity level of the ore the thorium was extracted from is about 600 years. The great pyramids lasted 7 time that long for pitys sake and are still standing. We can’t do 1/3 as well as the ANCIENTS IN 3000 BC? That’s a Green meme there, it’s just forever – and it’s totally a lie.
    Clean power that doesn’t leave enormous piles of acid rock above ground – https://www.google.com/maps?ll=37.677265,-87.814493&spn=0.01987,0.042272&t=h&z=15 the gray area is several million tons of acid rock, the black area is coal slurry. Clean power that doesn’t mean possible death for everyone downstream. The anti nuke fanatics never mention that Fukishima has killed NO ONE outside the plant property. You can’t make that claim for coal or oil or NG or hydro. The claims of “buhmillions of cancer cases” will be proven UTTERLY FALSE just as it was proven so at Chernobyl. The very same WHO that was predicting millions of cancer cases in Europe “in two decades” has had to admit they could not find ANY, which they hid by claiming “there might be some below the statistical level of confidence”, which means, mathematically, NONE! NOT ONE case in Europe they can point to, not one in Finland. That’s hidden in their 2005 report on Chernobyl. They like to natter about thyroid cancer in the Chernobyl close region – but guess what. That number they natter about is almost EXACTLY the same as the number in the USA, and very comprable to the level among women in Paris. Deal with it.
    Well, that’s going to get hated a LOT, I’m not PC and it’s actually discussing FACTS. Wow, do Americans ever hate facts.

  • A physicist conducting a global warming study is like a Boeing 747 captain conducting a study involving a helicopter. Yes, Lovejoy is a scientist, but he is not an expert in the field of climatology.

  • Hydrogen energy now! It’s been doable for a hundred years — and it’s rather carbon neutral when the electrolysis of water (to separate hydrogen from oxygen atoms) is done with wind and solar energy.
    (Here’s where the dumb people and Big Oil defenders start calling hydrogen a complicated technology that we’re not ready for.)

  • Corey Todnem

    The ignorance in the comments here is indeed staggering. We are a country of idiots, and I weep for the future.

  • Charlie Daubitz

    After 4 billion years of climate change? Why would you EVER think it could be controlled?

  • MaineUKFan

    I’m not terribly bright but, thanks to all of the climate “experts” commenting on this article, I think I’m a little more stupid than I was before reading them. Thank goodness we have such bright and capable laypeople to prevent us from being duped by all of those evil scientists with their fancy degrees. You know: the ones who actually do field work and spend time in laboratories and analyze the growing wealth of available data and evidence.

  • MaineUKFan – try listening to the scientists whose jobs don’t depend on the outcome. There are plenty out there screaming to be heard. You just have to listen to them. Do you think someone who has received a big research grant to study antrhopogenic global warming is likely to conclude that there’s no basis for it?

  • Eric Scarlett

    Hi, I am not a scientist though I am well versed in Physics and Chemistry. They are not my profession more a passion that drove me to do graduate level coursework in both areas. With that in mind, I have a question that I would like you to address if you will please.
    I am not one of these “anti-global warming” conspiracists, but with any real science work, healthy skepticism is the foundation of the long term viability of any theory. I have heard the debate from several sides of the “man-made” global warming question but what really stands out to me are the ethical and political connections that seem to be present throughout this one particular science. It is frustrating for everyone in that how can anyone be believed when so much of the science is bound within government grants on one side and religious zealots on the other? This in particular has caused me to pause and start looking into it myself and I must say that from the “middle” of the spectrum, there sure looks like there is plenty of evidence from all sides to keep the debate lively. My main concern on the side of science is testability and prediction. To be a sound theory, something we can base making huge changes to our economy and ways of life, there needs to be testable predictions that can be proven by experiment. This seems to be lacking in environmental science. I won’t even get into the other side because much of it is nonsense and speculation.
    Here is where I am stuck though – I have researched the Vostok ice core data extensively. These data along with the recent article from “http://publications.mcgill.ca/reporter/2014/04/odds-that-global-warming-is-due-to-natural-factors-slim-to-none/” has caused me to step back a bit and ask myself if I can continue to support what we’re doing economically and politically. These data clearly show that the rise in temperature comes before the rise in CO2 levels, some by as much as 1000 years! The general scientific view is that CO2 “causes” temperature rise, but these data don’t support that! It also shows clearly the cyclical nature where global temperatures and CO2 levels rise and fall in fairly large amounts every hundred thousand years or so.
    To tie this to the article, you said that from about 1500, the cause of the higher CO2 levels cannot be due to natural fluctuations with an accuracy of 99%. How can this be when the Voslok data clearly shows that we are, as we speak, at the peak of one of those 100,000 year cycles where global CO2 and temperatures are near their limits historically? I think of it like this, what if it was not an issue of CO2? Wouldn’t it be just as sound statistically to say that with 99% accuracy the rise in CO2 and temperature since 1500 cannot be due to natural fluctuations but instead due to the decreases in infant mortality since 1500? My point is that we can point to anything that has changed during some short period of time geologically and show that it is the cause of something while in the background, on a scale of hundreds of thousands of years, the true cause lingers quietly. Can you tell me what is wrong with this line of thinking?

  • Eric, the more you look, the more problems like this you find. For example, the recent wave of warming started in about 1910 – well before human emissions became significant. Temperature increased for about 30 years, then stopped for 30 years, and increased again at the same rate as the original rise. So what caused the initial increase, if it wasn’t human emissions, and what makes us think that 1970 – 2000 was any different?

  • “A physicist conducting a global warming study is like a Boeing 747 captain conducting a study involving a helicopter. Yes, Lovejoy is a scientist, but he is not an expert in the field of climatology.” – But I suppose Al Gore is?

Comments are closed.